# Reality doesn't change because you don't want to hear it

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [March 26, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816 "2010-03-26T00:07:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 21

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/401 "2010-04-13T23:12:17Z")

</div>

> [@spark240](#):
>
> Thanks for the entertainment, all.
> 
> Maybe as an independent business owner–someone for whom customer relations relate directly to the personal bottom line–I can offer my perspective.
> 
> It’s only a “bad” (unprofitable) business decision if the company is making errors _so frequently_ that they can’t afford to give an extra token of apology to the customers they’ve screwed with. Control of the opportunity for these situations to arise rests entirely with the company.

read it again; there’s a major difference between giving a customer an extra token of apology and “whatever they want” isn’t there? If you’ve been reading my posts you should have seen that I acknowledged that something extra as a way of apology is good business. If your independent company makes few mistakes and doesn’t have deal with over the top customers then good for you. I’ve already said those customers are rare but tend to stand out. As a company grows and has more employees and more customers there are more errors to deal with and the greater likelihood of running into the crazed customers who either loose it completely over an honest mistake that can be corrected, or customers who purposely try to game the system and complain as a means to get something extra.

As I said, there’s balance between having policies that please customers and generate business and policies that alienate customers and policies that encourage bad behaviour in customers. One example, return policies.

Easy no hassle returns became a hallmark of most large chains. Over time customers began to take advantage of these policies to rent for free or just to entertain themselves by playing with items for 30 days that they had no intention of buying. Eventually it cost the companies bottom line so much they had to change their return policies and establish restocking fees and other safeguards.

> [@](#):
>
> It’s _required_ and _necessary_ only if you want to be perceived as a company with excellent customer service, who go _beyond_ the barest minimum in rectifying their screwups.
> 
> That reputation is usually worth a lot more than it costs.
> 
> A company that can’t _afford_ to do this has bigger problems than listening to irate customers.
> 
> Companies which generally follow the model of “the customer does not pay for our mistakes, no way, never” generate more new business (and suffer fewer existing-customer defections) than companies which generally follow the model of “you can’t _make_ us do that for you.”

Again, you’ve misunderstood and taken that quote out of context. The term is “unnecessary losses” which does not exclude correcting a mistake and offering something extra, but you have to decide what that something extra is. A line must be drawn as customers make demands. That’s the reality of doing business. Some posters here were insisting that the customer in question deserved everything for free because of the mistake.

My response was that in my business if we make a mistake, and depending on the details I might give the customer a free HDMI cable or have even given away a free basic DVD player, but I wouldn’t give them a free HDTV because we made a mistake. That’s over the line of good business.

If you owned a furniture store and made a mistake delivering furniture you might refund the delivery charge but you probably wouldn’t refund the furniture as well.

The point is great customer service does not mean giving in to every customer demand even when a mistake is made, because some customers make incredibly unreasonable demands.

I’ve talked to several independent small business men and they’ve both had to fire certain customers because the customers were so demanding and such a pain in the ass they just weren’t worth it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/402 "2010-04-13T23:15:52Z")

</div>

> [@bucketybuck](#):
>
> In year one of my degree, we learned that it can be a good thing to give more than you have to, to certain customers, to foster long-term relationships.
> 
> In later years, we learned that things are not quite as black and white as that.

How wonderfully succinct with point made. My previous post shows I’m not good at this yet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/403 "2010-04-15T17:01:15Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> read it again; there’s a major difference between giving a customer an extra token of apology and “whatever they want” isn’t there? [snip] Some posters here were insisting that the customer in question deserved everything for free because of the mistake.

I think you’re the one with the reading comprehension problem.

No one here is saying that the customer deserved to get “everything for free” just because the company screwed up. The problem is _the specific nature of the mistake_ that the company made. **The company canceled and refunded the wrong policy.** The money is already out the door; there’s no way to get it back. At that point,\* it behooves the company to eat the error\*. The \*customer \*should not be responsible for purchasing a new policy–even a policy identical in every way to the one that was just canceled–because the policy should never have been canceled in the first place. If the company’s system is set up so poorly that they cannot swap policies around without customer involvement (i.e., trade should-have-been-canceled policy for should-not-have-been-canceled policy, without the customer having to buy anything else), that is the _company’s_ problem, not the _customer’s_.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/404 "2010-04-15T18:01:25Z")

</div>

> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> I think you’re the one with the reading comprehension problem.
> 
> No one here is saying that the customer deserved to get “everything for free” just because the company screwed up. The problem is _the specific nature of the mistake_ that the company made. **The company canceled and refunded the wrong policy.** The money is already out the door; there’s no way to get it back. At that point,\* it behooves the company to eat the error\*. The \*customer \*should not be responsible for purchasing a new policy–even a policy identical in every way to the one that was just canceled–because the policy should never have been canceled in the first place. If the company’s system is set up so poorly that they cannot swap policies around without customer involvement (i.e., trade should-have-been-canceled policy for should-not-have-been-canceled policy, without the customer having to buy anything else), that is the _company’s_ problem, not the _customer’s_.

Seems a little like semantics. I was thinking what at least Shodan was suggesting was that they cancel the policy she didn’t want , issue that refund and reinstate the policy she wanted at no charge. That sure seems like everything for free to me.  
Are you suggesting they not refund the policy she already has which is the one she doesn’t want, and use that money to pay for the policy she wants and simply reinstate it? Assuming it is and please correct me if I’m mistaken,  
Usually refunding something and repurchasing on a CC even if it’s even money, requires some communication with the customer. I would imagine they have some way of holding a refund as a credit to go towards another purchase, but maybe not. It also sounds like if they can’t do it the way you suggest since it their problem then the customer should get everything for free? So how was I wrong exactly?  
There’s a couple of other factors in there we don’t know as well. Were the two policies the same length of time. What if one was fr a radio for 20 dollars and one was for a LCD TV for $150. Still seem like a reasonable solution? What if the one she originally wanted canceled was the more expensive one?  
I’m also wondering how the term “eat it” was being used in prior posts. If your suggestion is the company reinstate her policy and get paid for it how is that eating it?

I think it’s clear in the end she would have gotten what she wanted had she been able to listen and I imagine if Chimera had foreseen her irrational outburst he would have chosen his words differently. He didn’t so he had to deal with her as she was {temporarily insane}  
My biggest objection in this thread has not been with people disagreeing with him on method, but those blatantly misrepresenting what he actually said or suggesting he was lying.

{you’ll be happy to hear my spanking fund is up to $37.50}

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/405 "2010-04-15T19:24:29Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Seems a little like semantics. I was thinking what at least Shodan was suggesting was that they cancel the policy she didn’t want , issue that refund and reinstate the policy she wanted at no charge. That sure seems like everything for free to me.

It’s about _intent_. The point is not that we think she should get everything for free, but that the company should fix their mistake with no additional involvement for the customer, which \*in this case \*means she gets something for free, because the company doesn’t have a better way to resolve it without involving her again.

> [@](#):
>
> Are you suggesting they not refund the policy she already has which is the one she doesn’t want, and use that money to pay for the policy she wants and simply reinstate it? Assuming it is and please correct me if I’m mistaken,  
> Usually refunding something and repurchasing on a CC even if it’s even money, requires some communication with the customer.

Whatever they do, they should be doing _internally_, is my point. They should cancel the incorrectly retained policy and restate the mistakenly canceled one. If they cannot transfer the payment from wrong policy to right policy, they need to just eat that cost. \*It is not the customer’s fault \*that the company is set up in such a way that they cannot apply a payment she has already made to the policy they should have left her with.

> [@](#):
>
> It also sounds like if they can’t do it the way you suggest since it their problem then the customer should get everything for free? So how was I wrong exactly?

Because \*the end goal \*is not to give her things for free, but for the company to fix the problem without requiring anything more of the customer. Internal issues should be solved internally whenever possible. The idea here is not “The company fucked up, so they have to give away the store.” It’s “The company fucked up, so they have to fix it with their own tools.”

> [@](#):
>
> and I imagine if Chimera had foreseen her irrational outburst he would have chosen his words differently.

And as been observed by nigh-everyone in this thread, a fucking retard should be able to tell that the words he chose would piss the everliving shit out of anybody. To the point of screaming probably not, but certainly to the point of never wanting anything to do with his employer ever again.

{you’ll be happy to hear my spanking fund is up to $37.50}  
[/QUOTE]

At that rate, I’m going to need my attendant at the nursing home to heft the paddle for me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/406 "2010-04-15T20:37:46Z")

</div>

> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Because \*the end goal \*is not to give her things for free, but for the company to fix the problem without requiring anything more of the customer. Internal issues should be solved internally whenever possible. The idea here is not “The company fucked up, so they have to give away the store.” It’s “The company fucked up, so they have to fix it with their own tools.”

I understand the explanation. It sure looked like everything for free when it was just “they should eat it” It’s a nice ideal but I think in practical terms it doesn’t always work that way.

> [@](#):
>
> And as been observed by nigh-everyone in this thread, a fucking retard should be able to tell that the words he chose would piss the everliving shit out of anybody.

I’d say this is an exaggeration. A reasonable adult say like myself would understand the idea that once a refund has gone through you can’t just wish it away. I would have been annoyed, maybe even pissed, but I would have listened to hear the solution and make sure it wasn’t going to cost me any extra rather than going ballistic and screaming like a banshee while someone was trying to explain.

> [@](#):
>
> To the point of screaming probably not, but certainly to the point of never wanting anything to do with his employer ever again.

That was an option for her too rather than having a screaming fit. Cancel the other one too and move on. I could have understood that and it wouldn’t have prompted any post from Chimera. It was the fact that she still wanted a policy but chose to scream incoherently rather than listen to how she could get what she wanted that prompted the OP.

> [@](#):
>
> At that rate, I’m going to need my attendant at the nursing home to heft the paddle for me.

Gulp!! {well played :D}

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/407 "2010-04-15T21:10:12Z")

</div>

Again, no one is saying that screaming was in any way a reasonable or proportionate response. The discussion now is about the actions taken before the screaming started, by \*\*Chimmy \*\*and his company. And those actions were shitty and poorly thought out.

We’re going in circles.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/408 "2010-04-15T21:12:44Z")

</div>

Lest anyone THINK you are gonna last word Cosmosdan on this topic, just put that thought to bed. It’s not going to happen. I marvel at his dedication to this topic.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816.md?page=20)